Training of clinical reasoning with a Serious Game versus small-group problem-based learning: A prospective study

Angélina Middeke, Sven Anders, Madita Schuelper, Tobias Raupach, Nikolai Schuelper, Angélina Middeke, Sven Anders, Madita Schuelper, Tobias Raupach, Nikolai Schuelper

Abstract

Introduction: Serious Games are increasingly being used in undergraduate medical education. They are usually intended to enhance learning with a focus on knowledge acquisition and skills development. According to the current literature, few studies have assessed their effectiveness regarding clinical reasoning (CR). The aim of this prospective study was to compare a Serious Game, the virtual Accident & Emergency department 'EMERGE' to small-group problem-based learning (PBL) regarding student learning outcome on clinical reasoning in the short term.

Methods: A total of 112 final-year medical students self-selected to participate in ten 90-minute sessions of either small-group PBL or playing EMERGE. CR was assessed in a formative examination consisting of six key feature cases and a final 45-minute EMERGE session.

Results: Overall, the EMERGE group (n = 78) scored significantly higher than the PBL group (n = 34) in the key feature examination (62.5 (IQR: 17.7)% vs. 54.2 (IQR: 21.9)%; p = 0.015). There was no significant difference in performance levels between groups regarding those cases which had been discussed in both instructional formats during the training phase. In the final EMERGE session, the EMERGE group achieved significantly better results than the PBL group in all four cases regarding the total score as well as in three of four cases regarding the final diagnosis and the correct therapeutic interventions.

Conclusion: EMERGE can be used effectively for CR training in undergraduate medical education. The difference in key feature exam scores was driven by additional exposure to more cases in EMERGE compared to PBL despite identical learning time in both instructional formats. EMERGE is a potential alternative to intensive small-group teaching. Further work is needed to establish how Serious Games enhance CR most effectively.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. Screen shots of EMERGE.
Fig 1. Screen shots of EMERGE.
Top left, pager messages a new patient´s arrival. Top right, paramedic provides handoff information. Lower left, selection menu for laboratory tests. Lower right, selection menu for medical history. Graphics by PatientZero Games GmbH.
Fig 2. Flow of participants through the…
Fig 2. Flow of participants through the study.
Contamination occurred when students attended another group´s teaching sessions and thereby were erroneously exposed to the wrong session at least once.

References

    1. Kassirer JP. Teaching clinical reasoning: case-based and coached. Acad Med. 2010;85: 1118–1124.
    1. Croskerry P. A Universal Model of Diagnostic Reasoning. Acad Med. 2009;84.
    1. Eva KW. What every teacher needs to know about clinical reasoning. Med Educ. 2005;39: 98–106. 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01972.x
    1. Kern D, Thomas P, Howard D, Bass E. Curriculum Development for Medical Education A Six- Step- Approach. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press; 1998.
    1. Srinivasan M, Wilkes M, Stevenson F, Nguyen T, Slavin S. Comparing problem-based learning with case-based learning: effects of a major curricular shift at two institutions. Acad Med. 2007;82: 74–82. 10.1097/01.ACM.0000249963.93776.aa
    1. Spencer JA, Jordan RK. Learner centred approaches in medical education. 1999;318: 1289–1283.
    1. Biggs J. Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. High Educ. 1996;32: 347–364.
    1. Raupach T, Andresen JC, Meyer K, Strobel L, Koziolek M, Jung W, et al. Test-enhanced learning of clinical reasoning: a crossover randomised trial. Med Educ. 2016;50: 711–720. 10.1111/medu.13069
    1. Ziv A, Wolpe PR, Small SD, Glick S. Simulation-based medical education: an ethical imperative. Acad Med. 2003;78: 783–788.
    1. Kleinert R, Wahba R, Chang D-H, Plum P, Hölscher AH, Stippel DL. 3D Immersive Patient Simulators and Their Impact on Learning Success: A Thematic Review. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17: e91 10.2196/jmir.3492
    1. Vivekananda-Schmidt P, Psycholb C. A Serious Game for Teaching Nursing Students Clinical Reasoning and Decision-Making Skills. Nurs Inform 2016. 2011;42: 905.
    1. Girard C, Ecalle J, Magnan A. Serious games as new educational tools: how effective are they? A meta-analysis of recent studies. J Comput Assist Learn. 2013;29: 207–219. 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00489.x
    1. Hege I, Kononowicz AA, Berman NB, Lenzer B, Kiesewetter J. Advancing clinical reasoning in virtual patients–development and application of a conceptual framework. GMS J Med Educ. 2018;35.
    1. Ericsson KA. Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Acad Med. 2004;79: 70–81.
    1. Berman NB, Durning SJ, Fischer MR, Huwendiek S, Triola MM. The Role for Virtual Patients in the Future of Medical Education: Acad Med. 2016;91: 1217–1222. 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001146
    1. Kaczmarczyk J, Davidson R, Bryden D, Haselden S, Vivekananda-Schmidt P. Learning decision making through serious games. Clin Teach. 2015;13: 277–82. 10.1111/tct.12426
    1. Bryce D, King N, Graebner C, Myers J. Evaluation of a diagnostic reasoning program (DxR): Exploring student perceptions and addressing faculty concerns. J Interact Media Educ. 1998;98: 451–455.
    1. Dankbaar MEW, Richters O, Kalkman CJ, Prins G, ten Cate OTJ, van Merrienboer JJG, et al. Comparative effectiveness of a serious game and an e-module to support patient safety knowledge and awareness. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17: 30 10.1186/s12909-016-0836-5
    1. Dankbaar MEW, Alsma J, Jansen EEH, van Merrienboer JJG, van Saase JLCM, Schuit SCE. An experimental study on the effects of a simulation game on students’ clinical cognitive skills and motivation. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2016;21: 505–521. 10.1007/s10459-015-9641-x
    1. Friedman CP. The marvelous medical education machine or how medical education can be unstuck in time. Med Teach. 2000;22: 496–502. 10.1080/01421590050110786
    1. Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM. The impact of e-learning in medical education. Acad Med. 2006;81: 207–212.
    1. Ludwig S, Schuelper N, Brown J, Anders S, Raupach T. How can we teach medical students to choose wisely? A randomised controlled cross-over study of video- versus text-based case scenarios. BMC Med. 2018;16: 107 10.1186/s12916-018-1090-y
    1. Hrynchak P, Glover Takahashi S, Nayer M. Key-feature questions for assessment of clinical reasoning: a literature review. Med Educ. 2014;48: 870–883. 10.1111/medu.12509
    1. Davis MH, Harden RM. AMEE Medical Education Guide No. 15: Problem-based learning: a practical guide. Med Teach. 1999;21: 130–140. 10.1080/01421599979743
    1. Lyon HC, Healy JC, Bell JR, O’Donnell JF, Shultz EK, Wigton RS, et al. Significant efficiency findings while controlling for the frequent confounders of CAI research in the PlanAlyzer project’s computer-based, self-paced, case-based programs in anemia and chest pain diagnosis. J Med Syst. 1991;15: 117–132.
    1. Wahlgren C-F, Edelbring S, Fors U, Hindbeck H, Ståhle M. Evaluation of an interactive case simulation system in dermatology and venereology for medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2006;6: 40 10.1186/1472-6920-6-40
    1. Carr MM, Reznick RK, Brown DH. Comparison of computer-assisted instruction and seminar instruction to acquire psychomotor and cognitive knowledge of epistaxis management. Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 1999;121: 430–434.
    1. Diehl LA, Gordan PA, Esteves RZ, Coelho ICMM. Effectiveness of a serious game for medical education on insulin therapy: a pilot study. Arch Endocrinol Metab. 2015;59: 470–473. 10.1590/2359-3997000000118
    1. Youngblood P, Harter PM, Srivastava S, Moffett S, Heinrichs WL, Dev P. Design, Development, and Evaluation of an Online Virtual Emergency Department for Training Trauma Teams: J Soc Simul Healthc. 2008;3: 146–153. 10.1097/SIH.0b013e31817bedf7
    1. Kononowicz AA, Krawczyk P, Cebula G, Dembkowska M, Drab E, Frączek B, et al. Effects of introducing a voluntary virtual patient module to a basic life support with an automated external defibrillator course: a randomised trial. BMC Med Educ. 2012;12: 41 10.1186/1472-6920-12-41
    1. LeFlore JL, Anderson M, Zielke MA, Nelson KA, Thomas PE, Hardee G, et al. Can a Virtual Patient Trainer Teach Student Nurses How to Save Lives—Teaching Nursing Students About Pediatric Respiratory Diseases. J Soc Simul Healthc. 2012;7: 10–17. 10.1097/SIH.0b013e31823652de
    1. Knight JF, Carley S, Tregunna B, Jarvis S, Smithies R, de Freitas S, et al. Serious gaming technology in major incident triage training: A pragmatic controlled trial. Resuscitation. 2010;81: 1175–1179. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.03.042
    1. Vukanovic‐Criley JM, Boker JR, Criley SR, Rajagopalan S, Criley JM. Using Virtual Patients to Improve Cardiac Examination Competency in Medical Students. Clin Cardiol. 2008;31: 334–339. 10.1002/clc.20213
    1. Vash JH, Yunesian M, Shariati M, Keshvari A, Harirchi I. Virtual patients in undergraduate surgery education: A randomized controlled study. ANZ J Surg. 2007;77: 54–59. 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2006.03978.x
    1. Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S, Dupras DM, Erwin PJ, Montori VM. Internet-based learning in the health professions: a meta-analysis. Jama. 2008;300: 1181–1196. 10.1001/jama.300.10.1181
    1. van der Vleuten CPM. Revisiting “Assessing professional competence: from methods to programmes.” Med Educ. 2016;50: 885–888. 10.1111/medu.12632
    1. Cook DA. The research we still are not doing: an agenda for the study of computer-based learning. Acad Med. 2005;80: 541–548.
    1. Raupach T, Brown J, Anders S, Hasenfuss G, Harendza S. Summative assessments are more powerful drivers of student learning than resource intensive teaching formats. BMC Med. 2013;11: 61 10.1186/1741-7015-11-61

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi